A Tale of Two Morals:

Two Moral Paradigms:

1.    The Classic (Heroic) Paradigm: the Hero reaches a fork in the road.

a.         This divergence represents a contradiction between conflicting Goods or Evils.

                     i.   If he can, the Hero selects the Greater Good (G.G.) or the Lesser of Two Evils. (L.O.T.E.)

                  ii.   If neither the G.G. nor the L.O.T.E. is available to the Hero, he simply chooses a path arbitrarily.

b.         He must make a choice in order to:

                     i.   Escape an impending evil which PURSUES him, and

                  ii.   Pursue a Teleological Purpose which lies at the end of a path or beyond its conclusion.

c.         All such roads, except for the Lesser Good or the Greater Evil, (though perhaps even those, but to an inhibited extent) lead to one Righteous/Spiritual Goal which serves as the Ultimate Teleological Destination for the Heroic Quest. This may be represented as “Heaven”.

d.         Once a path has been chosen, the Hero’s character is tested by his ability to remain CONSISTENT in STAYING THE COURSE. This is referred to as the Virtue of Resilience.

2.    The Modern (Corporate) Paradigm: the Employee takes one, predestined road prescribed by an Organization of his early choosing.

a.         All Goods attained along this road are seized immediately, although long-term goals are observed.

b.         The long-term goal is aimed at the perpetuation of the Organization, which enables the Employee to attain short-term, immediate goals on behalf of the Organization.

c.         There is no Ultimate Teleological Purpose, but there is the constant threat of Tragedy/Failure (Hell).

d.         “Morality” is no longer that gold with which all roads are paved, but rather that gold with which passage is bought.

                     i.   Whereas the Heroic Paradigm regards the “goal” and “morality” inextricably and synonymously, the Corporate Paradigm conceives of “ambition” and “morality” as two conflicting forces, between an “intrinsically egocentric individual” and the “beneficence of the Organization”.

                  ii.   The Organization is established as “beneficent” by a Consuming Public which equates the Organization’s moral identity with its “reputation”.

               iii.   In order to preserve its “reputation”, the Organization institutes various Rules and Guidelines for “moral/ethical behaviour” in its constituent Employees. Employees who violate these principles:

1.         Are excluded from the Organization, and

2.         Their own, “individual reputation” suffers as a result, precluding various opportunities for affiliation with other Organizations which enjoy “success” owing to their “reputation”.

e.         Individual Conscience, Rationality, Tradition, and Teleology cease to act as sources of moral guidance.

f.         In adhering to the “long-term mindset”,

                     i.   Employees and Managers are compelled, by various manipulative means, to exercise the Virtue of Patience, censoring short-term goals in favour of Ethical Guidelines.

                  ii.   This rigidity manifests in a sort of learned sociopathy wherein any situation or person who does not serve the “long-term” project is treated either as means or as demoralizing obstacle.

               iii.   Thus the manipulated become manipulators in turn.

 

3.   The former approach offers a Path to Heaven. The latter approach only serves to preclude expulsion to Hell, whilst at the same time ensuring that scapegoats will be damned. Where the both coexist must thereby regarded logically as “Purgatory”.

[({Dm.R.G.)}]